[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libmpcodecs support

Diego Biurrun diego
Sun Jan 16 15:53:52 CET 2011

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 01:45:06AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:52:59PM +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:37:25PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > What is really important to me is that theres a point after which you wont
> > > accept further cosmetics from diego in libmpcodecs. I know diego will always
> > > find more that needs cleanup once he starts looking. And its not fun if 50% of
> > > commits are useless cosmetics and one has to merge that by hand.
> > 
> > That is fine by me, but Diego needs to get a say in that.
> > Actually I'd prefer if you two could discuss this directly, since I
> Ok, lets try.
> Diego, ping! you are in CC
> i suggest we leave it at the tab removial and continue as soon as luca and
> ronald agree.
> comments?

This libmpcodecs thing is the stupidest idea I have heard in a long time.
Sorry to be blunt, but you are not exactly known for mincing words
yourself.  However, I do not expect to have the slightest say in this,
same as the other devs in this thread.  Apparently all that counts are
a few voices on the ffmpeg-users mailing list.

Temporary hacks like this have never had a lifetime smaller than infinity
in the past, this one will not be an exception.  If this gets committed,
it will stay with ffmpeg until the heat death of the universe.  Nothing
reduces motivation to work on an improved system more than one that is
more or less good enough; witness libfaad2 or Flash player.

If this is supposed to help porting filters, publish a branch and write
a filter porting HOWTO that instructs people where to pull that branch
from.  There is absolutely no need to have this code in trunk/master.

I also see that Carl Eugen just committed the tab removal that directly
conflicts with my uncrustify work without any previous discussion, even
though Reimar mentioned that I am working on something related.

I vividly remember a certain flamewar caused by rewording Doxygen
comments without previous discussion.  But apparently the rules have
been momentarily disabled or they never applied to everybody equally
in the first place.

Don't tell me that the tab removal was discussed here previously.
Obviously the place to discuss MPlayer changes cannot be an FFmpeg
mailing list, else I will just run FFmpeg through uncrustify after
I have done it to MPlayer.  I'm sure I can find a mailing list where
nobody will find my announcement within the 24h timeframe between
commit threat and execution.


P.S.: *Not* having a DLL loader was one of the earliest policy decisions
made by Fabrice, he added it to the FAQ in r145.  It has stood ever
since and nobody except you ever contested it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20110116/8090627e/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list